Strange Observation in Idaho

[paleraider]

Paleraider is someone that is stuck in his own town, county and state.
Probably never has - or will - leave his little sanctuary to experience other state's hunting opportunities - thats too bad because there is so much to enjoy.

As far as the NonRes coming to Idaho to hunt... would you rather have them move there and become a resident?

Seriously sir, in none of my comments have I made judgements on the people who are making the comments. I have stated my position you can agree or disagree but making uninformed statements about people you don't know is at best childish. I have hunted all over the US and will continue to do so. I also don't complain about the cost of doing so or the fees for NonRes tags. Yet I would like my state to stop being the fall back dumping ground for everyone who wants to hunt Elk from the West Coast.

 

[Odell]

Seriously sir, in none of my comments have I made judgements on the people who are making the comments. I have stated my position you can agree or disagree but making uninformed statements about people you don't know is at best childish. I have hunted all over the US and will continue to do so. I also don't complain about the cost of doing so or the fees for NonRes tags. Yet I would like my state to stop being the fall back dumping ground for everyone who wants to hunt Elk from the West Coast.

Wait, so it's ok for you to do it in other states, but not for us to come to yours?

 

[Gobbler36]

Your proposal is flawed in a bunch of ways, Your assumption that raising prices in Idaho will somehow affect management policy in Wa is insane. They don't care. Also, you are making a HUGE assumption that mis-management is the reason you are seeing more hunters. Wrong, most people are doing both. People have more disposable income and hunting adventures are awesome. Just because Idaho has better hunting than WA doesn't reflect mismanagement per say, probably reflects geography and population more than anything but either way, many WA hunters enjoy both and would hunt both even if the quality went down. If you really want to whine about what caused the recent increase in visitors you should really point the finger at the internet, Cameron Haynes, Steve Rinella, born and raised outdoors, Gritty bowmen etc. And it is just as easy for you to hunt WA as it is for me to hunt Idaho. OTC tags in both states, both similar in price.

How can you say it's not mis management at times when there are zones in Idaho that are below objectives for elk but yet they still give out 1500 tags for that zone. They manage it to be the "opportunity" state for NR because of the money, not to keep more elk on the ground or to have a pleasurable experience while out in the mountains. Wyomings model is best no otc units general tags that NR have to draw then at least folks aren't pouring in year after year they at least have a year or 2 buffer year. Wait we do have some grizzlies maybe we can shut wilderness down unless there's an outfitter involved!

 

[JLH208]

As far as the NonRes coming to Idaho to hunt... would you rather have them move there and become a resident?

I was waiting for that question to be asked haha and honestly I haven't jumped in this conversation yet because no, I would rather keep it the way it is. As I resident I had the advantage over my out of state neighbors this year. I knew places I could go that they just wouldn't know from maps. It was fine. I know they paid a lot of money to come hunt there, and yes they could choose to become a resident and pay less, and spend more time out there year round as I do and then guess what, they know where I was going to get away from them and I can't anymore. This thread was not intended to go this way but I understand everyone's passion. I just wish they would channel that passion in an effective manner. Like a phone call to a congressman.


- Jesse

 

[Odell]

How can you say it's not mis management at times when there are zones in Idaho that are below objectives for elk but yet they still give out 1500 tags for that zone. They manage it to be the "opportunity" state for NR because of the money, not to keep more elk on the ground or to have a pleasurable experience while out in the mountains. Wyomings model is best no otc units general tags that NR have to draw then at least folks aren't pouring in year after year they at least have a year or 2 buffer year. Wait we do have some grizzlies maybe we can shut wilderness down unless there's an outfitter involved!

Do you mean Idaho is mismanaged? I have no idea about that, I think you misunderstood. The guy I'm responding to says the mismanagement is by OR/WA/CA and that because hunting is mismanaged in those states that is the main reason we head to Idaho. I'm saying it has way more to do with proximity and opportunity to hunt more than it does disatisfaction with hunting at home.

 

[Odell]

Which btw, if you know anything about elk hunting in California I'm not sure how anyone could expect better management in CA to increase elk opportunities enough so that CA hunters quit going OOS for elk.

 

[paleraider]

Wait, so it's ok for you to do it in other states, but not for us to come to yours?

Please point out in any of my comments where I stated that nonres hunters where unwanted or not welcome? Your comment is not inline with what I have said. Which is simply charge a surtax on CA/WA/OR hunters. This will not stop them, it will raise more money for my state, it will cause a discussion to take place about the opportunity for hunting in those states simply look at the all the responses the idea generated in one thread on one forum.

 

[Odell]

Please point out in any of my comments where I stated that nonres hunters where unwanted or not welcome? Your comment is not inline with what I have said. Which is simply charge a surtax on CA/WA/OR hunters. This will not stop them, it will raise more money for my state, it will cause a discussion to take place about the opportunity for hunting in those states simply look at the all the responses the idea generated in one thread on one forum.

Yes, here you go, your very first post:
Yes it was over run with people who are from out of state. I am really torn on this one to be honest. They are hunting Idaho because the regs and opportunities in their own states are bad. So they are coming here and making it less enjoyable for the residents who fund the state treasury.

This will come off as very ranty but so be it. Personally I think Idaho should charge an additional tax on Elk/Mule deer tags to all out of state residents who who's home states have elk/mule deer. This wouldn't impact the majority of folks out east but would hopefully slow down the CA/WA/OR crowd. Ideally I would make this tag hurt quite a bit, like $500-$1000. This would hopefully call attention the the poor management of the home states. It isn't like as an ID resident I am going to have a great opportunity to hunt OR/WA/CA.

Are these welcoming comments? Does this communicate that you want and welcome Idaho hunters? Lets track your argument explicitly and implicitly:
1. Idaho is over-run with OOS hunters and it negatively affects your quality of hunting
2. The reason it is over run is because of poor management in CA/WA/OR (ca has almost no elk hunting and never will)
3. A punitive tax will result in less OOS hunters thereby making your hunting more enjoyable
4. OOS hunters forced to hunt at home will pressure their wildlife managers to improve hunting at home (therefore staying home and out of Idaho)
5. It's unfair because Idaho residents fund the state budget (? Is your wildlife program funded by these taxes?)
6. ID residents don't have a great opportunity to hunt CA/WA/OR (already proven false. All 3 states have OTC non-res opps for deer, WA/OR for elk)

 

[Odell]

Yes, here you go, your very first post:
Yes it was over run with people who are from out of state. I am really torn on this one to be honest. They are hunting Idaho because the regs and opportunities in their own states are bad. So they are coming here and making it less enjoyable for the residents who fund the state treasury.

This will come off as very ranty but so be it. Personally I think Idaho should charge an additional tax on Elk/Mule deer tags to all out of state residents who who's home states have elk/mule deer. This wouldn't impact the majority of folks out east but would hopefully slow down the CA/WA/OR crowd. Ideally I would make this tag hurt quite a bit, like $500-$1000. This would hopefully call attention the the poor management of the home states. It isn't like as an ID resident I am going to have a great opportunity to hunt OR/WA/CA.

Are these welcoming comments? Does this communicate that you want and welcome Idaho hunters? Lets track your argument explicitly and implicitly:
1. Idaho is over-run with OOS hunters and it negatively affects your quality of hunting
2. The reason it is over run is because of poor management in CA/WA/OR (ca has almost no elk hunting and never will)
3. A punitive tax will result in less OOS hunters thereby making your hunting more enjoyable
4. OOS hunters forced to hunt at home will pressure their wildlife managers to improve hunting at home (therefore staying home and out of Idaho)
5. It's unfair because Idaho residents fund the state budget (? Is your wildlife program funded by these taxes?)
6. ID residents don't have a great opportunity to hunt CA/WA/OR (already proven false. All 3 states have OTC non-res opps for deer, WA/OR for elk)

Don't try to act like you are welcoming OOS hunters. You clearly want less of them and you want to tax them out of the state while you yourself claim to regularly enjoy hunting other states. That is hypocrisy my friend, just own it but don't try to act like your only concern is other states managing their wildlife better

 

[1signguy]

Again- The whole argument of this post is flawed- Increasing the non-resident cost to hunt in Idaho would do nothing to curb outside hunting pressure other than maybe elevate the price above the average Joe being able to take his son hunting... It certainly would do nothing to change other states hunt management other than they too might increase non-resident fees...

Could Idaho charge more and get the money? No doubt. There are just lots and lots of people with means who are going to hunt elk in the Fall in several states regardless of cost... So maybe you push the cost out of reach of some but then your success rate goes up which means more well to do people put in for Idaho elk next year... Call me crazy but I would much prefer to continue to see hunting be affordable (somewhat as I know it is a sacrifice for many) and attainable to the masses.

We all have a vested interest in seeing young mom's and dad's take their sons and daughters into the forest to hunt. We should be asking ourselves how can we keep hunting costs low! Not penalizing folks who already make significant sacrifices to be able to get that family time in the forest every Fall- regardless of their resident state!

From the standpoint of a person who has been much blessed- my self interest in the short term might be best served by pushing the cost to hunt out of the reach of others. More animals, fewer hunters... better for me. However, I really feel like we best serve our group interest by working to keep hunting cost low and open to as many as possible. Why would anyone want to deny a young person from out of state the ability to hunt elk/mule deer? How is anyone served if all we have is a bunch of plutocrats hob-nobbing in the forest? Which is what your proposal supports.

How great it is to see a young person harvest his/her first cow. Or maybe a young man feed his family elk or venison. A man who's children hopefully go on to support our sport and grow into the type of people our country needs. So let's deny this opportunity to someone because they reside in a different state... That's just obtuse and short sighted.

So I guess I fail to see any wisdom or benefit from raising non-resident fees...

 

[paleraider]

Don't try to act like you are welcoming OOS hunters. You clearly want less of them and you want to tax them out of the state while you yourself claim to regularly enjoy hunting other states. That is hypocrisy my friend, just own it but don't try to act like your only concern is other states managing their wildlife better

I didn't say I was welcoming either. I did say we are over run and I would like it to be reduced. Which isn't a statement of "go away you aren't wanted here". You can imply any tone you want, it doesn't make it so. I also never said my only concern was how other states manage their game. It was a statement made with multiple intent, reasons, and objectives. So tickling apart one part of it and saying "you really mean this part" is not really true.

The research I did last year in hunting in those states don't align with your assessment as it didn't appear the opportunity and access were a like for like. I will dig it up this evening and clarify.

 

[Odell]

I didn't say I was welcoming either. I did say we are over run and I would like it to be reduced. Which isn't a statement of "go away you aren't wanted here". You can imply any tone you want, it doesn't make it so. I also never said my only concern was how other states manage their game. It was a statement made with multiple intent, reasons, and objectives. So tickling apart one part of it and saying "you really mean this part" is not really true.

The research I did last year in hunting in those states don't align with your assessment as it didn't appear the opportunity and access were a like for like. I will dig it up this evening and clarify.

seriously? Are you going to changing your position? You asked me to point out in any of you comments where you stated that nonres hunters were unwanted or not welcome. I did that. You claim indifference? Cmon man.

I'm not an expert on the regs but I guarantee you that you can hunt bulls roosevelt elk OTC every single year in western WA and bulls OTC in NE washington as well as enter the lottery for a bull tag in any premier unit just like I do. There is no preference given to residents in tag allotment in WA, only a price difference. There are OTC units in both eastern and western oregon as well.

 

[sagebuster]

I, too, saw a few more out of state license plates during elk season...Washington, Oregon, Utah...than I've seen in previous years. I realize that the thing to do these days is to hunt multiple states for multiple animals...I can take a bull and two bucks in Idaho, a buck in Wyoming, a bull in Colorado... in the same year, all if I have the time and the money. An influx of out of state hunters in Idaho in recent years doesn't bother me. Let them come...pay the price. If they get lucky, more power to them. I'm sure Washington and Oregon are backed up with Idaho license plates during steelhead fishing seasons, especially this year when our season was briefly shut down for lack of returning fish. My guess it all evens out.

As for the argument here, well...Congress is tasked with regulating interstate commerce. I think it's all best left to them.

 

[AdamRappe]

Who wants to come hunt blacktail in Oregon? We will happily welcome you out of state hunters.

 

[paleraider]

seriously? Are you going to changing your position? You asked me to point out in any of you comments where you stated that nonres hunters were unwanted or not welcome. I did that. You claim indifference? Cmon man.

I'm not an expert on the regs but I guarantee you that you can hunt bulls roosevelt elk OTC every single year in western WA and bulls OTC in NE washington as well as enter the lottery for a bull tag in any premier unit just like I do. There is no preference given to residents in tag allotment in WA, only a price difference. There are OTC units in both eastern and western oregon as well.

I feel we are in a semantic disagreement that we will not reach consensus on. I want less out of state hunters. That in no way in my mind means I am unwelcoming of them or they are in totality unwanted. Wanting less of something isn't saying you want none of it and wish it will all go away and never be seen again. I get how you can read it that way but it doesn't make it so.

 

[blackpowderhunter]

I feel we are in a semantic disagreement that we will not reach consensus on. I want less out of state hunters. That in no way in my mind means I am unwelcoming of them or they are in totality unwanted. Wanting less of something isn't saying you want none of it and wish it will all go away and never be seen again. I get how you can read it that way but it doesn't make it so.

you want your cake, and to eat it too..and i don't mean that in a rude way..i'm just saying that is what i surmised.
Basically, you want less OOS hunters, paying more, to equalize the (in theory) lesser numbers..so that you can have less congestion at the trail head, but ID F&G will have the same amount of revenue.

 

[kicker338]

All of you out of state hunters need to relax a little, the way the are closing and gating off roads here in Nth. Idaho a bunch of us might be coming to your states to find a place to hunt. Us older guys here are really taking the brunt of this road closing, a lot of these roads go in for miles and even if we were physically able to walk that far we couldn't get an elk out of there. I met 2 young guys coming out of a gated road lst wk. they had an elk down about 4mi. in and were coming back in the morning to get it out. We talked a bit about the gates and I talked about how at 70yrs. old I couldn't get an elk out that far in. Their response was we love those gates, it's like having a privet ranch to hunt, no one but us there. I just said to myself the hell with it loaded up my camp and went home. There is another side to this forest service policy of stay on designated roads, try to find a camp site, guys are going out a wk. befor season and setting up a camp just so they will have one when season opens. Got to remember you are only allowed to camp no more than 100ft. off a designated road.

 

[Odell]

I feel we are in a semantic disagreement that we will not reach consensus on. I want less out of state hunters. That in no way in my mind means I am unwelcoming of them or they are in totality unwanted. Wanting less of something isn't saying you want none of it and wish it will all go away and never be seen again. I get how you can read it that way but it doesn't make it so.

I agree you can want less of something vs nothing at all. It's not a semantic disagreement to point out that your intentions are the opposite of the words you are using. You claimed to be innocent of not wanting or welcoming OOS hunters when faced with your hypocrisy. Perhaps you would do better to say "I'd like a smaller cap on OOS hunters in Idaho." instead of confusing the issue with taxes and double talk.

Welcome:
interjection
1.(a word of kindly greeting, as to one whose arrival gives pleasure):
Welcome, stranger!
noun
2.a kindly greeting or reception, as to one whose arrival gives pleasure:
to give someone a warm welcome.
verb (used with object), welcomed, welcoming.
3.to greet the arrival of (a person, guests, etc.) with pleasure or kindly courtesy.
4.to receive or accept with pleasure; regard as pleasant or good:

 

[paleraider]

you want your cake, and to eat it too..and i don't mean that in a rude way..i'm just saying that is what i surmised.
Basically, you want less OOS hunters, paying more, to equalize the (in theory) lesser numbers..so that you can have less congestion at the trail head, but ID F&G will have the same amount of revenue.

Yes this is correct!

 

[blackpowderhunter]

Yes this is correct!

so you are unwelcoming of out of state hunters (or at least a certain % of them) in the current situation
that's what started this whole debacle, that and you wanted additional fees on top of the already over 10x costs.
i get it..you want the woods to yourself. everyone does. but you gotta sell licenses and tags and non res fees keep your costs down as well as fund the programs.
Idaho already has a non resident tag quota...so you should be more upset with idaho for that quota being too high, not with the people who are just utilizing the opportunity.